沙与城:论二十世纪巴勒斯坦的殖民发展及其回避的敌人

IF 0.8 3区 历史学 Q4 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Dotan Halevy
{"title":"沙与城:论二十世纪巴勒斯坦的殖民发展及其回避的敌人","authors":"Dotan Halevy","doi":"10.3197/096734022x16384451127302","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article traces the colonial origins of a crucial aspect of the environmentalist discourse since the mid-twentieth century – the idea that planetary substances should be stripped of ownership rights and become in and of themselves the subject of rights. The article looks closely at the Gaza region under British mandatory rule to explain how the rehabilitation of Gaza city, devastated during WWI, has failed. Gaza’s reconstruction efforts, the article argues, collided with the British initiative to arrest the drift of dunes along the coast of southern Palestine. Throughout this project, the British administration extinguished Arab property and usufruct rights to expand state domains. They backed this policy with an elaborate ecological perception that saw sand and its inhabitants as agents of environmental ruin. The quarrel that has developed thus made the Gaza region an imperial test ground for probing what sand is? Does it have a history? And, therefore, can it be claimed as an object of rights? Divorcing nature from culture, the British administration in Palestine rejected the validity of sandy lands’ economic past and constructed them as inhospitable ‘wastelands’ – a purely natural element. As such, sands could be subjected to governmental ‘development’ through afforestation and urbanisation while time-honoured agricultural practices and land rights of the local coastal population were neglected.","PeriodicalId":45574,"journal":{"name":"Environment and History","volume":"70 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sand and the City: On Colonial Development and its Evasive Enemies in Twentieth-Century Palestine\",\"authors\":\"Dotan Halevy\",\"doi\":\"10.3197/096734022x16384451127302\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article traces the colonial origins of a crucial aspect of the environmentalist discourse since the mid-twentieth century – the idea that planetary substances should be stripped of ownership rights and become in and of themselves the subject of rights. The article looks closely at the Gaza region under British mandatory rule to explain how the rehabilitation of Gaza city, devastated during WWI, has failed. Gaza’s reconstruction efforts, the article argues, collided with the British initiative to arrest the drift of dunes along the coast of southern Palestine. Throughout this project, the British administration extinguished Arab property and usufruct rights to expand state domains. They backed this policy with an elaborate ecological perception that saw sand and its inhabitants as agents of environmental ruin. The quarrel that has developed thus made the Gaza region an imperial test ground for probing what sand is? Does it have a history? And, therefore, can it be claimed as an object of rights? Divorcing nature from culture, the British administration in Palestine rejected the validity of sandy lands’ economic past and constructed them as inhospitable ‘wastelands’ – a purely natural element. As such, sands could be subjected to governmental ‘development’ through afforestation and urbanisation while time-honoured agricultural practices and land rights of the local coastal population were neglected.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45574,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environment and History\",\"volume\":\"70 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environment and History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3197/096734022x16384451127302\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environment and History","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3197/096734022x16384451127302","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文追溯了自20世纪中期以来环境保护主义话语的一个重要方面的殖民起源——地球物质应该被剥夺所有权,并成为权利的主体。这篇文章仔细观察了在英国强制统治下的加沙地区,以解释在第一次世界大战期间被摧毁的加沙城的重建是如何失败的。文章认为,加沙的重建努力与英国阻止巴勒斯坦南部海岸沙丘漂移的倡议发生了冲突。在整个项目中,英国政府消灭了阿拉伯人的财产和用益权,以扩大国家领域。他们用一种复杂的生态观念来支持这一政策,认为沙子和沙子上的居民是破坏环境的罪魁祸首。由此引发的争吵使加沙地区成为探索沙子是什么的帝国试验场。它有历史吗?因此,它可以作为权利客体来主张吗?将自然与文化分离,英国在巴勒斯坦的行政当局拒绝承认沙地过去经济的有效性,并将其构建为不适宜居住的“荒地”——一个纯粹的自然因素。因此,政府可以通过植树造林和城市化来“开发”沙子,而忽略了当地沿海人口的历史悠久的农业实践和土地权利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Sand and the City: On Colonial Development and its Evasive Enemies in Twentieth-Century Palestine
This article traces the colonial origins of a crucial aspect of the environmentalist discourse since the mid-twentieth century – the idea that planetary substances should be stripped of ownership rights and become in and of themselves the subject of rights. The article looks closely at the Gaza region under British mandatory rule to explain how the rehabilitation of Gaza city, devastated during WWI, has failed. Gaza’s reconstruction efforts, the article argues, collided with the British initiative to arrest the drift of dunes along the coast of southern Palestine. Throughout this project, the British administration extinguished Arab property and usufruct rights to expand state domains. They backed this policy with an elaborate ecological perception that saw sand and its inhabitants as agents of environmental ruin. The quarrel that has developed thus made the Gaza region an imperial test ground for probing what sand is? Does it have a history? And, therefore, can it be claimed as an object of rights? Divorcing nature from culture, the British administration in Palestine rejected the validity of sandy lands’ economic past and constructed them as inhospitable ‘wastelands’ – a purely natural element. As such, sands could be subjected to governmental ‘development’ through afforestation and urbanisation while time-honoured agricultural practices and land rights of the local coastal population were neglected.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
46
期刊介绍: Environment and History is an interdisciplinary journal which aims to bring scholars in the humanities and biological sciences closer together, with the deliberate intention of constructing long and well-founded perspectives on present day environmental problems. Articles appearing in Environment and History are abstracted and indexed in America: History and Life, British Humanities Index, CAB Abstracts, Environment Abstracts, Environmental Policy Abstracts, Forestry Abstracts, Geo Abstracts, Historical Abstracts, History Journals Guide, International Bibliography of Social Sciences, Landscape Research Extra, Referativnyi Zhurnal, Rural Sociology Abstracts, Social Sciences in Forestry and World Agricultural Economics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信